George W., Judicial Activist. The religious right made him do it. (Bashbot Alert!)

Slate ^ | Posted Tuesday, Feb. 24, 2004, at 4:34 PM PT | By Timothy Noah

[.cnI redruM]

Q: So if a state were voting on gay marriage, you would suggest to that state not to approve it?

A: The state can do what they want to do. Don't try to trap me in this state's [rights] issue like you're trying to get me into. … In my state of Texas, if we tried to have gay marriage, I would campaign against it.

—Candidate George W. Bush, in a presidential debate moderated by Larry King in Columbia, S.C., Feb. 15, 2000

Peter Singer cites this exchange in his new book, The President of Good and Evil: The Ethics of George W. Bush, in order to demonstrate the hypocrisy of Bush's subsequent support for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage (which Bush formalized today). "No genuine advocate of small government would seek to take from the states the right to decide whether people of the same sex can marry," Singer observes. Singer is an awkward ally for the gay rights movement, given his past support for interspecies sex (which prompted this dissent from Chatterbox and this somewhat more thoughtful reply from Slate's William Saletan). But this time out, the Princeton bioethicist's logic is unassailable. Bush is a fair-weather federalist.

[.cnI redruM]

Noah spreads it thick. I think I need a pair of hip-boots.

[prognostigaator]

How do the gays , once married, get a divorce?
In Nevada?

[CasearianDaoist]

Leave it to liberals to reverse all values. A constitutional amendment is the exact opposite of "Judicial Activism."

[dirtboy]

George W., Judicial Activist...Bush is a fair-weather federalist.

I'm curious how supporting the process of amending the Constitution (a process in which Bush actually plays no role) to take a state issue and follow the rules to make it a federal one makes Bush a "fair-weather" federalists (it was the federalists, after all, who crafted the process to amend the Constitution), or how it makes him a judicial activist (given that the change would be done without input from the courts as well).

The left is quite fond of calling up down and wrong right, but this is whacked even by their standards.

[.cnI redruM]

You could even say Timothy knoahs Nothing.

He is unusually Orwellian this morning.

[trebb]

More typical "liberal" misdirection - the STATE of California voted 61% - 39% AGAINST gay marriage. The President is advocating that when the people of the state have their wishes overridden by activist minorities, it is time for the Feds to step in. Otherwise, the only recourse of the people to exert their will would be by violence.

[.cnI redruM]

Timothy Noah rates as a trolladytic lackey at best. The term journalistic hack comes to mind. He has interned for years at the Michael Kinsley School of Journalistic Misinformation for years. He no longer understands the distinction between fact and falsehood.

[sportscaster]

Can we get a CBO score on what gay marriage would COST the treasury. I am not sure the government can afford the cost of adding to the roll of married tax benafactors.
Yep gay marriage (as tax cuts in general ...forgetting for purpose of this argument that tax cuts always have INCREASED receipts) WE JUST CAN'T AFFORD IT !

[PincusBerk]

The idea of having a constitutional amendment on a specific issue does not really address the problem. The real problem is that one branch of the government, the courts, have usurped the ultimate authority over our government. The whole talk of judicial restraint is nonsense. We were supposed to be a government of checks and balances. It should not be up to our courts whether they restrain themselves. The other branches must do this. Until conservatives address this issue, we will continue to go from one crisis to another and continue to embitter the whole judicial nomination process.

[PincusBerk]

The idea of having a constitutional amendment on a specific issue does not really address the problem. The real problem is that one branch of the government, the courts, have usurped the ultimate authority over our government. The whole talk of judicial restraint is nonsense. We were supposed to be a government of checks and balances. It should not be up to our courts whether they restrain themselves. The other branches must do this. Until conservatives address this issue, we will continue to go from one crisis to another and continue to embitter the whole judicial nomination process.

[.cnI redruM]

No, I tend to think The Judicial Branch will bring dictatorship to the land if it is not checked in some manner. I think the courts have usurped more power than they deserve and are ruining the lives of people by fiat.

[David75]

I don't know what is worse: that this guy actually believes what he writes, or that he is taken seriously enough to justify his employment. Judicial activism, by definition, is impossible for a sitting President. For President Bush to even approach the same level of tyranny as judicial activism, he would have to ban gay marriage by executive order. He is instead pursuing a constitutional amendment, largely because those states that are pursuing gay marriage are doing so without the consent of the people. These facts throw the idea of "fair-weather federalism" out the window.

Tim Noah is either ignorant of the plain truth or deliberately spreading lies. Either way, he is a perfect candidate for Orwell's Ministry of Truth.

[.cnI redruM]

>>>>Tim Noah is either ignorant of the plain truth or deliberately spreading lies.

I think of these people who have degrees from Columbia and Hahvahd and then deliberately justify inanities as being alliterate. The are perfectly capable of knowing better. They choose stupidity.

[hosepipe]

[ I think of these people who have degrees from Columbia and Hahvahd and then deliberately justify inanities as being alliterate. The are perfectly capable of knowing better. They choose stupidity. ]

NO.. they choose "the lie"... cause they are NOT stupid.. thats the liberal disease that they pro-activily choose "the LIE".. on purpose with aforethought and with malfeasance.. its not an accident... and moderate republicans too, to a lesser degree.